Happy New Year

I probably won't blog for a while because I am going on vacation. To give you an idea of the lovely spot I am going in sunny Florida I found this picture which is pretty much exactly what we will see each day in the reclaimed everglades sprawl where I will be. I am very eager to see how things go in Iowa!

Bold New Richardson Ad

Check out the bold new Ad from Richardson. While I don't think this is a negative attack ad, some think it is. It has a clear message about an important difference between the candidates. Good for him. Obama, Clinton and Edwards do not plan to withdraw troops as he is proposing. If I were his campaign I would go for broke with ads that highlight his experience and the other three's inexperience. What does he have to lose.

OK NY Times Piece on Richardson

I am glad to see this NY Times piece on Bill Richardson. It is a long article and it highlights his foreign policy experience but it makes it clear he is a longshot for the nomination. Why can't the article mention the fact that he clearly has more foreign policy experience than the top candidates from either party and how important that is. Too little too late. He has be best overall experience in the entire race on all issues. They could include quotes from supporters or people who heard him speak.

Rush Thinks Stephanie is a Babe!

I am listening to mama and the mooks and they keep playing this funny quote from Rush Limbaugh where is says “Stephanie Miller, who is a babe on some days. She knows what I mean.” While she is a babe, I have no idea why he would say that, it seems odd. And very funny that they keep playing the clip. Maybe he hopes that if he says that she won't insult him as much. While sexist, it is nicer than what Steph says about Ann Colter. If tells his listeners that she is hot, I bet many of the listerns will google her to check her out.

Surprisingly Critical Comments from NY Times on the Fertility Diet

Surprisingly Critical Comments from NY Times on the Fertility Diet

Tara Parker-Pope has a very critical article on line about this new Harvard book about the connection between fertility and diet. Part of her criticism of the book is based on the methodology. I did not read the book but I did read the long article in Newsweek from the book. The study is based on the Nurses’ Health Study, which is a long term study of Nurses health. If you can draw statistically signficant results from looking at this data on the topic of diet and fertility, that seems like very interesting information to share. No smart person would rely solely on such a diet or book to try to conceive a child.

As someone who has been there and read everything I could find on the topic, I think this is a very useful addition to the understanding of fertility.

If someone doesn’t have ovulatory infertility, this won’t probably help them. But if infertility affects 7 million Americans and 1/3 have ovulatory infertility problems, then this may help over 2 million couples. She also is hung up on the fact that there are not other studies that support some of the conclutions found in their study. Yes, more should be done but if this study found strong relationships between some of the dietary variations and fertility that is solid and may be key for some people. The traditional fertility industry pushes expensive, difficult and dangerous treatments that often don’t work. If this could prevent some of that, great. If it leads some people to be more successful using drugs, IVF, etc. who would not otherwise be, great.

I am surprised that this article would be so critical of a fairly scientifically sound study with some new information. The recommendations to have some whole milk, no trans fat and some good low carbs seem like interesting and new information to me which could have helped us.

Ed Schultz was Mad!

I am not a big Ed Schultz fan but I was listening yesterday and he was really upset about two things. I don't really agree with him on either.

1. Bill Clinton's comments about Obama's inexperience. In an interview with Charlie Rose he made various statements about Obama including:

“When is the last time we elected a president based on one year of service in the Senate before he started running?”

Here is more info on interview. Ed thought that was dirty politics and inappropriate. It sounded like that was the straw that broke the camel's back and that he was no longer a Clinton supporter. While some of the other moves out of the Clinton camp seem a little low, this one seemed legitimate. What is the big deal about pointing out his inexperience? It shows they are scared of him but so what. To me Obama's rise despite his inexperience shows that many voters don't like HRC and are looking for the next best alternative. You should have heard him on this one. Really upset. That is a big deal if Ed Schultz really is not supporting HRC anymore but I don't listen very often to know if that is a big shift.

2. He was really mad at Lieberman about endorsing McCain. I am not sure what to think about this. I agree with Lieberman's effort to support someone who is able to work in together across parties in a bipartisan way. Ed thought that was stupid and had some very strong words for that line of thinking. He basically said, Dems are the best we should get more in congress and in the white house. I think the risk of going with a Republican is huge because all that goes with that but don't we want the American people to have an open mind and no be in a Red Blue war. There are independent thinking people in CT and in this country. It does seem odd given the range of candidates in the Democratic race that he could not find one to support. I still think he is why Gore lost.

Hello George...this is Olafur

I think this one is pretty good. I wish I could pull a prank call like this when I was a kid.

An Icelandic teenager tricked the White House into thinking he was Iceland's President Olafur Ragnar Grimsson.

I wonder how they eventually figured out it was not the real president. Do they get pranks like this often?

Political Chess and What has Bill been doing for 8 years

I was never very good a chess but I am somewhat fascinated/ obsessed with the GOP/ Democratic game going on between PR folks and the media and the candidates. The first basic question is who do democrats and republicans want to be their competition's nominee - who do they think would be easiest to beat? The next question is what are they doing to try to get that person closer towards the nomination. Then how does the media play into this, are they being used as a tool by one camp or another. One observation is that the Democrats with the help of the media have done a good job of exposing the problems with all top GOP candidates. The end result is that they don't have a front runner, there is lots of mudslinging, and Republicans probably don't feel great about any of their choices. It will be a major shift for them to drop all the mud and rally behind their man. Right now for example, the Romney people are slinging mud at Rudy and Hucklebee. Will the Romney supporters be happy to get behind one of them if they get the nomination?

I was just listening to the Slate podcast and they raised a rumor type issue I had not considered. They generally made a point I have been thinking about for a while. The GOP wants HRC to be the candidate because they think she is the most beatable and easy to attack. Therefore they have been holding back on major attacks. More specifically, they suggested that there is some dirt on Bill regarding his fooling around after his presidency which they will release after she gets the nomination. This will turn people off from the Clintons. This is upsetting if there is something to this because it will be dirty politics and ugly.

I wish I could get some back room top secrete memo from the political powerful that discusses their strategys at this point.

Althouse: Obama's "The One," says Oprah.

Althouse: Obama's "The One," says Oprah.
Althouse has a long post on Oprah stumping for Obama. I find it interesting that she doesn't really criticize either Barack or Oprah. I agree that it is interesting to see Oprah delve into politics since this is new ground for her. Althouse points out the religious inspirational spirit of the speech but does not say that it is a bad thing (but some of her commentators do).

I am starting to be excited about Obama and I am curious to see what the big criticisms are of him, I guess I have to look to other bloggers for this. Besides him not being experienced enough, what are the big negatives that can be said publically by pundits? I think the Oprah attention will help him because she is widely liked. I think this move will hurt Oprah among many fans. What does Althouse think of Obama?

Natural Resouces Foundation of Wisconsin Calendar

I received a beautiful NRF calender in my mailbox at work today. I find it somewhat upsetting that on the back it says that ATC - American Transmission Company paid for the production and distribution. ATC has a big PR effort to seem green and I understand that the NRF needs to accept private donations but I am not sure this endorsement by a group so closely tied to the DNR is appropriate. All environmental groups need to decide whether to accept corporate $ and it is hard to turn a way cash.

Ham for Chanukah!

This is so funny! Yum

next president?

I like this photo - from Salon